Editor -- It's too bad Michael Yaki chose to "make book" on the mayoral race rather than discuss issues in his article, "S.F. mayoral hopefuls make a run for the roses" (Insight section, May 11). Sadly, this is normal in San Francisco's self-destructive political environment where games are easier and more entertaining than appealing to the better instincts of a largely apathetic and uninformed public.

But a cool wind is blowing across San Francisco's recently balmy landscape that signals tough times ahead. As in California's gubernatorial race, where economic fantasy trumped reality until the race was over, the leading mayoral candidates in San Francisco prefer not to discuss the severity of our problems.

They would rather seduce sleepy city voters with reassuring words about how we can continue business as usual and avoid our day of reckoning if only we accelerate public spending and collect more taxes.

So the establishment's solution is to lobby Sacramento to allow cities to charge income taxes, currently illegal. My solution is to tell every department in City Hall it has 15 percent less, and then let the managers manage. And if they can't figure it out, they should be replaced. If businesses operated like City Hall, we'd all be out of business.

Former Supervisor Yaki, himself a San Francisco political casualty, might be right about my odds ("99-1"). But if I go down, at least I will have honestly given my best to promote ideas San Franciscans will need most in the tough days ahead.

The message of personal and economic freedom with corresponding responsibility can inspire tolerance and cooperation to heal a troubled and divisive San Francisco. Also, small government and free markets will lead to a San Francisco renaissance, whereas more taxes and government mandates will generate crime, more poverty and unemployment.

If this message is ignored, San Franciscans will pay dearly in the days ahead with the loss of wealth and freedom they once enjoyed. Why wouldn't San Franciscans select a mayor that only wants "choice" for citizens to do what they want rather than to take orders from special interests lurking around leading candidates?

So if I don't "get out of the gate," it won't be because I'm Libertarian as Yaki suggests. The reason will be that too many San Franciscans preferred to "make book" than get real. Unless this attitude changes in the public and media, I give San Franciscans the same odds of winning in this election that Michael Yaki gave me.

MICHAEL DENNY

The Democrats have no justification being vexed, because they contributed to the Bush popularity "phenomenon" as much as anyone, with their lack of backbone to stand up to the bully and their positioning to look like but not be the bully.

Fear -- the same kind of fear caused by stories of the IRS coming to your house (by mistake), placing a padlock on your door and hauling you off to jail -- is being produced by this administration for those who don't submit. Fear that my protests, my dissent, my questioning today may come back to haunt me tomorrow.

My advice to Democrats: If you want to lead, stand up and take the lead.

TONY MARTARELLA

Walnut Creek

Editor --
Carla Marinucci
's analysis does not address the central reality, which is that Democratic ideas are simply not as good or (for easier liberal consumption) as attractive as Republican ideas. Until the Democrats grasp this concept, they will continue to be vexed by Republican "phenomena."

STEVEN TRAVERS

San Anselmo

PLAN TO UPDATE U.S. NUCLEAR ARSENAL

Editor -- Thank you for the front-page article, "Bush's nuclear arms plans" (May 11). You state that the administration wants billions to update U.S. warheads -- nuclear weapons that we cannot use without horrific human and environmental consequences. In short, these weapons are useless. We are being asked for billions to upgrade the infrastructure of these useless weapons when we don't have the money to upgrade the aging infrastructure of our schools. We are being asked for millions more to provide funds for research into "low- yield," more "usable" nuclear weapons while we are asking other nations to forgo building nuclear weapons for their own use.

This proliferation of nuclear weapons would further destabilize the world community. This administration seems to get whatever it wants in the name of defense. An informed and concerned citizenry must do what it can to influence both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to stop President Bush's nuclear arms plans.

ELAINE GUTSTADT

San Rafael

Editor -- I don't think we can afford to spend billions on nuclear weapons as long as teachers are laid off and classrooms are enlarged again, as long as there are millions of people without health insurance, as long as there are still children going to bed hungry, as long as there are people without a roof over their head, as long as we need to fix bridges and roads, as long as we have promises to keep in Afghanistan and Iraq, as long as people need help with epidemics of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. As long as people matter, I don't think we can afford it.

MARGARETHA DERASARY

Oakland

Editor -- I was incredulous to read in your Sunday edition that the Bush administration is increasing the billions being spent on the military's nuclear capabilities at the very time the president is attempting to slash taxes by several hundred billions. It speaks plainly about what government services will suffer as a result of the tax cuts: basic social needs.

Look at the billions being spent on the war in Iraq and the billions sure to be spent in the future on other "pre-emptive" wars. It's plain that things like education, health care and environmental safety matter very little to the visionaries calling the shots in Washington.

The Bush administration does not care that it is burying the federal government in red ink, because it knows that the very government functions it disdains will be the ones on the chopping block. That is the long-term goal of those who hold the ax.

DAVID WELLE

Oakland

Editor -- Have those running this administration in Washington truly lost their collective minds?

President Bush wants billions of dollars to rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons manufacturing capability? For heaven's sake, to what end? Against more fictitious weapons of mass destruction?

How many times over can one blow up the world? Are we going to revisit the insane doctrine of "survivable nuclear war"?

This, along with billions in tax cuts to "stimulate the economy," against the advice of the most prominent economists of the world?

With just about all the human services in peril, from Social Security and Medicare to the veterans' benefits for those same guys on the carrier where Bush landed at an expense to taxpayers of $1 million?

How many schools would that finance? Will Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush family help out with the hundreds of thousands of dollars they will receive in savings if the tax cuts become law?